ANTHONY MCDANIELS, ) CITY OF CHICAGO, Former ) CHICAGO … · 2018-07-27 · 2 Introduction 1....
Transcript of ANTHONY MCDANIELS, ) CITY OF CHICAGO, Former ) CHICAGO … · 2018-07-27 · 2 Introduction 1....
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY MCDANIELS, ) ) Case No. Plaintiff ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF CHICAGO, Former ) CHICAGO POLICE SERGEANT ) RONALD WATTS, Former CHICAGO ) POLICE OFFICER KALLATT ) MOHAMMED, DOUGLAS NICHOLS, ) JR., MANUEL LEANO, ELSWORTH ) SMITH, JR., BRIAN BOLTON, ) LAMONICA LEWIS, EDGAR ) CARLOS, GABRIELLA SHEMASH, ) JOHN GRIFFIN, PHILIP J.CLINE, ) KAREN ROWAN, DEBRA KIRBY, ) and other as-yet-unidentified officers ) of the Chicago Police Department, ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Anthony McDaniels, by his attorneys, Loevy & Loevy, hereby
complains against Defendants, City of Chicago, former Chicago Police Sergeant
Ronald Watts, former Chicago Police Officer Kallatt Mohammed, Officers Douglas
Nichols, Jr., Manuel Leano, Elsworth Smith, Jr., Brian Bolton, Lamonica Lewis,
Edgar Carlos, Gabriella Shemash, John Griffin, Phillip J. Cline, Karen Rowan,
Debra Kirby, and other as-yet-unidentified officers of the Chicago Police
Department, and states as follows:
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 1 of 33 PageID #:1
2
Introduction
1. Anthony McDaniels was convicted of an offense he did not commit and
was sentenced to 12 years in prison.
2. Mr. McDaniels was incarcerated for a crime that never happened: it
was completely fabricated by Chicago police officers.
3. Mr. McDaniels was arrested on November 21, 2008 by corrupt Chicago
police officers. The officers routinely sought bribes, planted drugs and weapons, and
accused citizens, including Mr. McDaniels, of possessing drugs and guns they did
not possess.
4. The type of encounter these police officers had with Mr. McDaniels was
unfortunately quite common: a false accusation, criminal proceedings,
incarceration, and subsequent felony record.
5. During his criminal proceedings, Mr. McDaniels’ attorney produced
evidence that demonstrated concern about the credibility of the officers’ testimony.
The court, however, found the testifying officers credible and convicted Mr.
McDaniels at the bench trial.
6. After being convicted, Mr. McDaniels was sent immediately to prison,
where he spent most of the next decade.
7. In 2012, Defendant Mohammed and his supervisor, Defendant Watts,
were caught on tape engaging in the exact type of misconduct that Mr. McDaniels
alleged against Defendant Mohammed.
8. The federal government charged Watts and Mohammed criminally,
and the disgraced officers pled guilty and served time in federal prison.
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 2 of 33 PageID #:2
3
9. Over that time, evidence has come to light showing that Watts and his
police team members, including Defendants Nichols, Jr., Leano, Smith, Jr., Bolton,
and Lewis engaged in an ongoing pattern of criminal misconduct and that Chicago
Police Department officials knew about that pattern dating at least as far back as
2004.
10. For example, on or after November 16, 2017, following the decision of
the Cook County State’s Attorney Office (CCSAO) to vacate the convictions of 15
individuals, Defendants Nichols, Jr., Leano, Smith, Jr., Bolton, and Lewis, along
with other members of Watts’s crew, were placed on desk duty.
11. In addition, the CSSAO will no longer call Defendants Nichols, Jr.,
Leano, Bolton, Smith, and Lewis as witnesses “due to concerns about their
credibility and alleged involvement in the misconduct of Sergeant Watts.”
12. Through this lawsuit, Mr. McDaniels seeks accountability and
compensation for being deprived of his liberty as a result of Defendants’ misconduct.
Jurisdiction and Venue
13. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the
deprivation under color of law of Plaintiff’s rights as secured by the United States
Constitution.
14. This Court has jurisdiction over federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 and state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
15. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiff resides in this
judicial district and Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation located
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 3 of 33 PageID #:3
4
here. Additionally, the events giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred
within this judicial district.
The Parties
16. Mr. McDaniels is 50-years old.
17. At all relevant times, former Chicago Police Sergeant Ronald Watts,
former Chicago Police Officer Kallatt Mohammed, and Officers Douglas Nichols, Jr.,
Manuel Leano, Elsworth Smith, Jr., Brian Bolton, Lamonica Lewis, Edgar Carlos,
Gabriella Shemash, and John Griffin, were Chicago police officers employed by the
City of Chicago and acting within the scope of their employment and under color of
law. Collectively, these individual Defendants are referred to as “Defendant
Officers.”
18. At all relevant times, Defendant Watts was a leader of the Second
District Tactical Team.
19. At all relevant times, Defendants Mohammed, Nichols, Jr., Leano,
Smith, Jr., Bolton, and Lewis worked on Watts’ team.
20. At all relevant times, Defendant Phillip J. Cline was the
Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department.
21. At all relevant times, Defendants Karen Rowan and Debra Kirby were
Assistant Deputy Superintendents of the Chicago Police Department, acting as the
head of its Internal Affairs Division. Collectively, these Defendants, and Defendants
Watts, Shemash, and Griffin are referred to as “Defendant Supervisory Officers.”
22. The Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation under the
laws of the State of Illinois. The City operates the Chicago Police Department
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 4 of 33 PageID #:4
5
(“CPD”). The City is responsible for the policies, practices, and customs of the City
and CPD.
Factual Background
23. On November 21, 2008, Mr. McDaniels exited 5613 S. Prairie Avenue
in Chicago, alone.
24. As he approached his 1999 Ford Taurus, Defendants Mohammed and
Nichols approached him.
25. Mr. McDaniels knew Defendants Mohammed and Nichols as members
of Defendant Watts’s corrupt tactical team.
26. Watts and his tactical team members were well-known to Mr.
McDaniels and other residents in and around the southside housing projects. They
maintained a visible presence, and they had a reputation in the community of
harassing black men and women.
27. In the years prior, Defendants Mohammed, Nichols, Watts, and others
had all shaken down Mr. McDaniels and stolen money from him.
Defendant Officers Fabricate a Gun Case
28. When Defendants Mohammed and Nichols approached Mr. McDaniels,
the Officers immediately detained him.
29. Mr. McDaniels was doing nothing illegal and the Officers had no
warrant or probable cause.
30. After Defendants Mohammed and Nichols detained Mr. McDaniels,
they immediately shook him down, ordering Mr. McDaniels to give them any drugs
or money in his possession.
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 5 of 33 PageID #:5
6
31. Mr. McDaniels had no drugs or other contraband on him or in his car.
32. Mr. McDaniels told the officers he was not giving them anything.
33. Defendant Mohammed then unlawfully searched Mr. McDaniels and
stole $638 from him.
34. Defendants Mohammed and Nichols then unlawfully searched Mr.
McDaniels’s car, and Nichols falsely claimed he recovered a gun from Mr.
McDaniels’s car.
35. Mr. McDaniels insisted there was no gun in his car, and he did not
possess one.
36. Defendant Mohammed then communicated to Mr. McDaniels that he
would not be arrested or charged if he bribed them with money or drugs.
37. Mr. McDaniels refused Defendants Mohammed’s and Nichols’
shakedown.
38. In retaliation, Defendants Mohammed and Nichols arrested Mr.
McDaniels and took him to Area Police Headquarters.
39. The arrest was based on an illegal search made without cause, and the
planting of a gun that was not in Mr. McDaniels’s car or otherwise in his care,
custody, or control.
40. At the station, Defendants Mohammed and Nichols continued framing
Mr. McDaniels with gun charges.
41. Defendants Mohammed, Nichols, Leano, Smith, Bolton, Lewis, and
Carlos worked together to create a false and fabricated police report about Mr.
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 6 of 33 PageID #:6
7
McDaniels’s alleged possession of a gun and fabricated an inculpatory statement
from McDaniels that he never made.
42. Defendant Watts was the corrupt, direct supervisor of Defendants
Mohammed, Nichols, Leano, Smith, Bolton, and Lewis during this incident.
43. Defendants Shemash and Griffin approved the false arrest.
44. As a result of that false arrest and subsequent wrongful prosecution,
Mr. McDaniels spent years in jail awaiting trial proceedings.
Mr. McDaniels is Prosecuted and Convicted
45. On the basis of false reports that the Defendant Officers prepared, Mr.
McDaniels was prosecuted for gun crimes.
46. Mr. McDaniels filed a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence and an
evidentiary hearing was conducted.
47. At the motion hearing, Defendants Leano and Nichols falsely testified
that they observed Mr. McDaniels exit 5613 S. Prairie Avenue holding his
waistband.
48. Defendants Leano and Nichols then falsely testified that Mr.
McDaniels yelled “go, go, go” as he jumped into the passenger seat of a car.
49. Defendants Leano and Nichols then falsely testified that they followed
the vehicle and then activated their emergency lights when the vehicle did not stop
at a stop sign.
50. Defendants Leano and Nichols then falsely testified that because the
car did not stop for several blocks, they chased the vehicle .
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 7 of 33 PageID #:7
8
51. Defendants Leano and Nichols then falsely testified that while the car
was in motion, Mr. McDaniels jumped out of the vehicle.
52. Defendant Leano and Nichols then falsely testified that Defendant
Leano got out of his car and engaged in a foot chase, during which time a gun
ejected from Mr. McDaniels waistband.
53. Defendant Leano falsely testified that he recovered the gun Mr.
McDaniels dropped, and Defendant Nichols falsely testified that he apprehended
Mr. McDaniels.
54. Defendants Leano and Nichols falsely testified that Defendants
Mohammed, Smith, and Lewis recovered the car Mr. McDaniels jumped out of,
which was then abandoned, at 5620 S. King Drive, and that Defendant Mohammed
drove it to the police station.
55. Defendant Mohammed did not recover a car at 5620 S. King Drive, and
he did not drive it to the police station.
56. Rather, Antonio Riles, a tow truck driver, towed the vehicle in question
to the impound lot from 5613 S. Prairie, not 5620 S. King Drive nor the police
station.
57. Defendant Leano was not even present at the arrest.
58. Defendants Smith, Bolton, Lewis, and Carlos—who are listed as
assisting arresting officers on the police reports—were not present for the arrest.
59. Mr. McDaniels lost the suppression hearing.
60. Mr. McDaniels’s case later proceeded to a bench trial.
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 8 of 33 PageID #:8
9
61. At the bench trial, Defendants Leano and Nichols gave substantially
the same false testimony.
62. Antonio Riles, the tow truck driver, again testified that he towed the
vehicle from 5613 S. Prairie Avenue to the impound lot.
63. Defendant Mohammed falsely testified that he recovered the vehicle at
5620 S. King Drive and drove it to the police station.
64. Defendants Leano and Nichols also falsely testified that Mr.
McDaniels made an inculpatory statement after being read his Miranda warnings
at the police station, claiming that Mr. McDaniels told them he bought the gun on
the street for protection and just wanted to get the gun out of his car.
65. No officer ever read Mr. McDaniels any Miranda warnings and Mr.
McDaniels never made that or any other inculpatory statement.
66. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, Mr. McDaniels was convicted
and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
67. Defendant Officers never disclosed to the prosecutors that they had
fabricated evidence and falsified police reports related to Mr. McDaniels’s arrest.
68. Defendant Officers never disclosed to the prosecutors any of their
misconduct described herein.
69. If the prosecutors had known that Defendant Officers fabricated
evidence, lied under oath, and committed the other misconduct described herein,
they would not have pursued the prosecution of Mr. McDaniels, and his unlawful
deprivation of liberty would not have been continued.
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 9 of 33 PageID #:9
10
70. Given that the entirety of the State’s case against Mr. McDaniels
rested on Defendant Officers’ fabrication of evidence and the credibility of
Defendant Officers, the exculpatory evidence described in the preceding paragraphs
would have been material to Mr. McDaniels defense of his criminal charges.
Defendant Watts and His Crew Engaged in a Pattern of Misconduct For At Least A Decade, All Facilitated by the City’s Code of Silence
71. It was no secret within CPD that Watts and his crew engaged in the
type of misconduct of which Mr. McDaniels accused them.
72. Government officials, including those with the City of Chicago, knew
about Watts and his crew’s alleged misconduct as early as 1999.
73. By 2004, an FBI investigation of Watts and his crew was underway.
The FBI investigation took place with the knowledge and occasional participation of
the Chicago Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division (IAD).
74. Because IAD was kept abreast of the FBI investigation, by 2004, City
officials—including but not limited to the head of IAD and CPD Superintendent
Philip J. Cline—were aware of credible allegations that Watts and his team were
extorting and soliciting bribes from drug dealers.
75. According to another source who was interviewed, Watts used a drug
dealer named “Big Shorty” to run drugs at the Ida B. Wells complex. Big Shorty
would sell the drugs, turning profits over to Watts in exchange for Watts’s
protection. According to the source, Watts also used drug dealers as phony
informants to obtain illegitimate search warrants, and Watts also offered to let
arrestees go if they provided him with weapons.
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 10 of 33 PageID #:10
11
76. Targets of the FBI investigation extended beyond Watts to members of
Watts’s tactical team, such as Defendants Mohammed, Nichols, Lewis, and Smith.
77. By 2010, the FBI investigation generated evidence showing that Watts
engaged in systemic extortion of drug dealers, theft, the possession and distribution
of drugs for money, planting drugs on subjects, and paying informants with drugs.
78. Investigators also determined that Watts and his subordinates had
engaged in these activities for the prior ten years.
Watts and Mohammed Are Charged With Federal Crimes
79. In 2012, after at least a decade of engaging in criminal misconduct,
Defendants Watts and Mohammed were caught red-handed, shaking down a person
they thought was a drug courier, but who was actually an agent for the FBI.
80. The United States government subsequently charged Watts and
Mohammed with federal crimes.
81. Watts and Mohammed each pled guilty to federal criminal charges and
were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. See United States v. Watts, No. 12-CR-
87-1 (N.D. Ill.); United States v. Mohammed, No. 12-CR-87-2 (N.D. Ill.).
82. In its sentencing memorandum in the Watts case, the Government
explained that “[f]or years,” “the defendant [Watts] used his badge and his position
as a sergeant with the Chicago Police Department to shield his own criminal
activity from law enforcement scrutiny.” His crimes included “stealing drug money
and extorting protection payments” from the individuals he was sworn to protect
and serve.
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 11 of 33 PageID #:11
12
83. The government revealed that, for years, Defendants Watts and
Mohammed extorted tens of thousands of dollars of bribes from individuals at the
Ida B. Wells public housing complex on numerous occasions as part of their duties
with the CPD.
84. During the sentencing hearing, the Government urged Judge Sharon
Johnson Coleman to “consider the other criminal conduct that the defendant
[Watts] engaged in throughout the course of his career as a police officer,”
specifically noting that during the federal investigation Watts “did other things
such as putting a false case on the confidential source that was involved in our
investigation. Had him arrested on drug charges. And the source … felt he had no
chance of successfully fighting that case so he pled guilty to a crime he didn’t
commit.” The federal prosecutor wondered aloud “how many times [Watts] might
have done something similar when the government was not involved.”
85. Following the federal indictments of Watts and Mohammed, City
officials made efforts to downplay the magnitude of Watts’s criminal enterprise.
86. Notwithstanding the evidence that investigators had amassed over the
years pointing to a wide, decade long criminal enterprise, CPD Superintendent
Garry McCarthy publicly stated, “There is nobody involved other than the two
officers who were arrested.” As described in more detail below, that statement was
not true.
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 12 of 33 PageID #:12
13
The City’s “Code of Silence”
87. While the federal government was investigating Watts and his crew, a
“code of silence” existed within the Chicago Police Department.
88. Under this code, police officers are expected to conceal each other’s
misconduct, in contravention of their sworn duties, and penalties for breaking the
code of silence within the CPD are severe.
89. As one CPD officer has explained, “[The Chicago Police Academy told
officers] over and over again we do not break the code of silence. Blue is Blue. You
stick together. If something occurs on the street that you don’t think is proper, you
go with the flow. And after that situation, if you have an issue with that officer or
what happened, you can confront them. If you don’t feel comfortable working with
them anymore, you can go to the watch commander and request a new partner. But
you never break the code of silence.”
90. Pursuant to this “code of silence,” each of the Defendant Officers
concealed from Mr. McDaniels information that Watts and his team members were
in fact engaged in a wide-ranging pattern of misconduct. Had this information been
disclosed to Mr. McDaniels, he would have used it to impeach the officers’ accounts,
which would have changed the outcome of the criminal proceedings instituted
against him.
91. Also, consistent with this “code of silence,” the few people who stood up
to Watts and his crew and/or attempted to report his misconduct were either
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 13 of 33 PageID #:13
14
ignored or punished, and Watts and his crew continued to engage in misconduct
with impunity.
Careers of CPD Officers Daniel Echeverria and Shannon Spaulding Are Nearly Ruined
92. In 2006, two Chicago police officers, Daniel Echeverria and Shannon
Spaulding learned credible information from arrestees that Watts and his crew
were engaged in illegal drug activity.
93. Officer Echeverria took the allegation seriously and he reported it to a
CPD supervisor. The supervisor made clear that he was not interested in learning
about the allegation, and he directed Echeverria not to document the allegations.
94. Echeverria and Spaulding subsequently reported the allegations about
Watts and his crew to the FBI. Soon thereafter, Echeverria and Spaulding began
cooperating with the FBI, actively assisting the FBI’s investigation of Watts and his
crew.
95. When their cooperation became known to officers within their CPD
chain of command, Spaulding and Echeverria were labeled “rats” within the
Department, their lives were threatened, and they endured all manner of
professional retaliation by members of the CPD.
96. Spaulding and Echeverria subsequently sued the City for the
retaliation they suffered for blowing the whistle on Watts and his crew. On the eve
of trial in that case, the City settled for $2 million.
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 14 of 33 PageID #:14
15
CPD Officer Michael Spaargaren’s Life Is Threatened
97. Sometime in the mid-2000s, a CPD officer named Michael Spaargaren
was assigned to work with Watts in public housing.
98. Spaargaren observed that Watts did not inventory drugs and money
that the officers seized during arrests, and Spaargaren confronted Watts about the
misconduct.
99. In response, Watts threatened to put a false case against Spaargaren
and made veiled threats to kill him.
100. A CPD Lieutenant in the chain of command subsequently warned
Spaargaren to keep his mouth shut or his life would be in danger.
101. Fearful for his life, Spaargaren opted to take a one-and-a-half-year
leave of absence from CPD rather than to continue to work under Watts.
Citizen Complaints Go Nowhere
102. Defendants Watts, Mohammed, and other members of Watts’s tactical
team had accumulated dozens of citizen complaints concerning violations of their
civil rights over the years, beginning well before the misconduct Defendants
committed against Mr. McDaniels, and yet the City did nothing to stop the
misconduct.
103. On information and belief, complaints that the City bothered to
investigate largely boiled down a he-said-she-said between the officer and the
citizen and the City’s policy to resolve those disputes in the officers’ favor, no matter
how many citizens came forward with the same type of complaint.
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 15 of 33 PageID #:15
16
The City Turns a Blind Eye to the Clear Pattern of Alleged Misconduct that Emerged from Watts and His Crew
104. Despite all of the evidence that was amassed over the years of a
pattern and practice of criminal misconduct by Defendant Officers, on information
and belief, the City never undertook its own investigation of the clear pattern that
emerged.
105. As City officials were aware, the purpose of the FBI investigation was
to investigate and prosecute criminal activity, not to impose discipline and control of
the City’s Police Department.
106. Nothing about the FBI investigation relieved the City of its
fundamental responsibility to supervise, discipline, and control its officers.
Nevertheless, the City completely abdicated this responsibility, allowing the
widespread misconduct to continue undeterred throughout the FBI’s criminal
investigation of Watts and his crew.
107. During the FBI investigation, which spanned at least eight years, City
officials had reason to believe that Watts and his crew were committing ongoing
criminal activity on the streets—extorting drug dealers and framing citizens of
crimes they did not commit—yet City officials took no steps to prevent these abuses
from occurring.
108. Instead, City officials let officers on Watts’s crew continue to pursue
criminal charges against citizens like Mr. McDaniels and to testify falsely against
citizens like Mr. McDaniels.
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 16 of 33 PageID #:16
17
109. Even worse, City officials withheld information they had about the
officers’ pattern of transgressions, information that citizens like Mr. McDaniels
could have used to impeach the corrupt officers and defend against the bogus
criminal charges placed upon them.
Mr. McDaniels’s Exoneration
110. After Defendant Watts and his crew’s corruption came to light, in
March 2017, Mr. McDaniels filed a post-conviction petition alleging his innocence
and the pattern of misconduct of the Defendant Officers.
111. Months later, fifteen other similarly-situated men filed a Consolidated
Petition for Post-Conviction Relief (“Consolidated Petition”) seeking to vacate 18
drug convictions.
112. On November 16, 2017, upon the State’s motion, Judge LeRoy K.
Martin, Jr. vacated all of the 18 drug convictions, and the State nolle prossed all
charges related to the convictions.
113. In commenting on the extraordinary decision to agree to vacate all of
the drug convictions, head of Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office’s Conviction
Integrity Unit Mark Rotert stated that “In these cases, we concluded, unfortunately,
that police were not being truthful and we couldn’t have confidence in the integrity
of their reports and their testimony.”
114. Immediately thereafter, the CCSAO indicated it would no longer call
certain member of Watts’s crew, including Defendants Nichols, Leano, Bolton, and
Lewis, as witnesses in any pending or future matters because of their credibility
concerns and alleged involvement in misconduct.
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 17 of 33 PageID #:17
18
115. In addition, shortly after, Superintendent Johnson placed Defendants
Nichols, Leano, Smith, Bolton, and Lewis, along with other members of Watts’s
crew, on desk duty.
116. On June 25, 2018, again upon the State’s motion, a Cook County judge
vacated the conviction of Mr. McDaniels. The CCSAO immediately nolle prossed all
charges related to the convictions.
Mr. McDaniels’s Damages
117. Mr. McDaniels lost nearly a decade of his life and was subjected to
police harassment and unfair criminal proceedings before he was finally exonerated.
118. The emotional pain and suffering caused by being wrongfully
incarcerated has been significant. Mr. McDaniels was deprived of the everyday
pleasures of basic human life; his freedom was taken from him.
119. As a result of the foregoing, Mr. McDaniels has suffered emotional
damages, all proximately caused by Defendants’ misconduct.
Count I: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Due Process
120. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully
herein.
121. In the manner described more fully above, Defendant Officers, while
acting as investigators, individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with each other,
deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional right to due process and a fair trial.
122. In the manner described more fully above, Defendant Officers
deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence from Plaintiff and from state
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 18 of 33 PageID #:18
19
prosecutors, among others, as well as knowingly fabricated false evidence, thereby
misleading and misdirecting the criminal prosecution of Plaintiff.
123. Likewise, in the manner described more fully above, Defendants
Philip J. Cline, Karen Rowan, Debra Kirby, and other as-yet-unidentified CPD
supervisors, had knowledge of a pattern of misconduct by Watts and his team.
These Defendant Supervisory Officers knew of a substantial risk that Watts and his
team would violate the rights of Mr. McDaniels and other Chicago residents, and
they deliberately chose a course of action that allowed those abuses to continue,
thereby condoning those abuses.
124. The constitutional injuries complained of herein were proximately
caused by the intentional misconduct of Defendant Supervisory Officers, or were
proximately caused when Defendant Supervisory Officers were deliberately,
recklessly indifferent to their subordinates’ misconduct, knowing that turning a
blind eye to that misconduct would necessarily violate Plaintiff’s constitutional
rights.
125. In addition, Defendant Supervisory Officers themselves concealed
exculpatory evidence from Mr. McDaniels, specifically information about Watts’s
team’s pattern of misconduct. In this way, Defendant Supervisory Officers violated
Mr. McDaniels’ due process right to a fair trial deliberately and with reckless
disregard to Mr. McDaniels’ rights.
126. Defendants’ misconduct directly resulted in the unjust criminal
conviction of Plaintiff, thereby denying his constitutional right to due process and a
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 19 of 33 PageID #:19
20
fair trial guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Absent this misconduct, the
prosecution of Plaintiff could not and would not have been pursued.
127. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable
and was undertaken intentionally, with reckless and deliberate indifference to the
rights of others, and in total disregard of the truth and of Mr. McDaniels’s clear
innocence.
128. Defendants’ actions were taken under color of law and within the
scope of their employment.
129. The City of Chicago is also directly liable for the injuries described in
this Count because the City and CPD maintained official policies and customs that
were the moving force behind the violation of Plaintiff’s rights and also because the
actions of the final policymaking officials for Defendant City of Chicago and CPD
were the moving force behind the violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
130. At all times relevant to the events described in this Complaint and for
a period of time prior thereto, Defendant City of Chicago maintained a system that
violated the due process rights of criminal defendants like Mr. McDaniels by
concealing exculpatory evidence of Chicago police officers’ patterns of misconduct.
131. In addition, at all times relevant to the events described in this
Complaint and for a period of time prior thereto, Defendant City of Chicago had
notice of a widespread practice by its officers and agents under which criminal
suspects, such as Mr. McDaniels, were routinely deprived of exculpatory evidence,
were subjected to criminal proceedings based on false evidence, and were deprived
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 20 of 33 PageID #:20
21
of liberty without probable cause, such that individuals were routinely implicated in
crimes to which they had no connection and for which there was scant evidence to
suggest that they were involved.
132. As a matter of both policy and practice, Defendant City directly
encourages, and is thereby the moving force behind, the very type of misconduct at
issue here by failing to adequately train, supervise, control, and discipline its police
officers, such that its failure to do so manifests deliberate indifference. Defendant
City’s actions lead police officers in the City of Chicago to believe that their actions
will never be scrutinized and, in that way, directly encourage further abuses such
as those that Mr. McDaniels endured.
133. The above-described widespread practices, which were so well-settled
as to constitute the de facto policy of the City of Chicago, were allowed to exist
because municipal policymakers with authority over the same exhibited deliberate
indifference to the problem, thereby effectively ratifying it. These widespread
practices were allowed to flourish because Defendant City and the CPD declined to
implement sufficient policies or training, even though the need for such policies and
training was obvious. Defendant City and the CPD also declined to implement any
legitimate mechanism for oversight or punishment of officers, thereby leading
officers to believe that they could violate citizens’ constitutional rights with
impunity.
134. Furthermore, the misconduct described in this Complaint was
undertaken pursuant to the policy and practices of Defendant City in that the
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 21 of 33 PageID #:21
22
constitutional violations committed against Plaintiff were committed with the
knowledge or approval of persons with final policymaking authority for the City of
Chicago and the CPD, or were actually committed by persons with such final
policymaking authority.
135. Indeed, municipal policymakers have long been aware of Defendant
City’s policy and practice of failing to properly train, monitor, investigate, and
discipline misconduct by its police officers, but have failed to take action to remedy
the problem.
136. For example, at a City Council hearing on September 28, 1999, in
response to two high-profile unjustified police shootings, Superintendent Terry
Hillard noted the need for better in-service training on the use of force, early
detection of potential problem officers, and officer accountability for the use of force.
137. In June 2000, the Chairman of the Committee on Police and Fire of
the Chicago City Council submitted an official resolution recognizing that
“[Chicago] police officers who do not carry out their responsibilities in a professional
manner have ample reason to believe that they will not be held accountable, even in
instances of egregious misconduct.”
138. In 2001, the Justice Coalition of Greater Chicago (“JCGC”), a coalition
of more than a hundred community groups, confirmed the findings of that
resolution, concluding that the CPD lacked many of the basic tools necessary to
identify, monitor, punish and prevent police misconduct. The JCGC findings were
presented to Mayor Daley, Superintendent Hillard, and the Chicago Police Board.
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 22 of 33 PageID #:22
23
139. Despite the municipal policymakers’ knowledge of the City’s failed
policies and practices to adequately train, supervise, investigate, discipline, and
control its police officers, nothing was done to remedy these problems.
140. As a result, the CPD has continued to respond to complaint of police
misconduct inadequately and with undue delay, and to recommend discipline in a
disproportionately small number of cases.
141. Indeed, by its own admissions, more than 99% of the time when a
citizen complains that his or her civil rights were violated by police officers, the City
sides with the police officer and concludes that no violation occurred.
142. Notably, Defendants Watts, Mohammed, and Watts’s team are not the
first Chicago police officers who were allowed to abuse citizens with impunity over a
period of years while the City turned a blind eye.
143. For instance, in 2001, Chicago police officer Joseph Miedzianowski
was convicted on federal crime charges, including racketeering and drug conspiracy.
The jury found that Miedzianowski engaged in corruption for much of his 22-year
police career, using street informants to shake down drug dealers and sell drugs.
144. Miedzianowski, like Defendant Officers in this case, had accumulated
dozens of complaints over the years, which Defendant city routinely deemed
unfounded or not sustained.
145. Likewise, in 2011, Chicago police officer Jerome Finnigan was
convicted and sentenced on federal criminal charges, including a charge of
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 23 of 33 PageID #:23
24
attempting to hire someone to kill a police officer who Finnigan believed would be a
witness against him on his own corruption charges in state court.
146. Finnigan was part of a group of officers in Defendant City’s Special
Operations Section who carried out robberies, home invasions, unlawful searches
and seizures, and other crimes.
147. Finnigan and his crew engaged in their misconduct at about the same
time that Mr. McDaniels was targeted by Defendant Watts and his crew.
148. Finnigan, like Defendant Officers in this case, had accumulated
dozens of citizen complaints over the years, which Defendant City routinely deemed
unfounded or not sustained.
149. At his sentencing hearing in 2011, Finnigan stated, “You know, my
bosses knew what I was doing out there, and it went on and on. And this wasn’t the
exception to the rule. This was the rule.”
150. In the case of Klipfel v. Bentsen, No. 94-cv-6415 (N.D. Ill), a federal
jury found that, as of 1994, the CPD maintained a code of silence that facilitated
misconduct committed by Miedzianowski.
151. Likewise, in the case of Obrycka v. City of Chicago et al., No. 07 CV
2372 (N.D. Ill.), a jury found that as of February 2007 “the City [of Chicago] had a
widespread custom and/or practice of failing to investigate and/or discipline its
officers and/or code of silence.”
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 24 of 33 PageID #:24
25
152. The same constitutionally-defective oversight system in place during
the time periods at issue in the Klipfel case and in the Obrycka case were also in
place in 2008, when Mr. McDaniels suffered the abuse described above.
153. The same code of silence in place at the CPD during the time periods
at issue in the Klipfel case and in the Obrycka case were also in place in 2008, when
Mr. McDaniels suffered the abuse describe above.
154. Indeed, the problems found to exist by the jury in Klipfel and Obrycka
continue to this day. In December 2015, Mayor Rahm Emanuel acknowledged that
a “code of silence” exists within the Chicago Police Department that encourages
cover-ups of police misconduct, and that the City’s attempts to deal with police
abuse and corruption have never been adequate.
155. The policies, practices, and customs set forth above were the moving
force behind the constitutional violations in this case and directly and proximately
caused Plaintiff to suffer the grievous and permanent injuries and damages set
forth above.
156. Defendant City’s investigation of complaints is characterized by
unreasonably long delays, despite the relatively straight-forward nature of many
misconduct claims.
157. Although Defendant City has long been aware that its supervision,
training, and discipline of police officers is entirely inadequate, it has not enacted
any substantive measures to address that deficiency.
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 25 of 33 PageID #:25
26
158. Instead, Defendant City continues to inadequately investigate citizen
complaints and take action against officers when necessary. It has also failed to
modify its officer training programs to reduce misconduct against Chicago residents
or to implement a system to identify and track repeat offenders, districts, or units.
159. Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by officers, agents, and employees of
Defendant City of Chicago and the CPD, including but not limited to the
individually named Defendants, who acted pursuant to the policies, practices, and
customs set forth above in engaging in the misconduct described in this Count.
Count II: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 –Malicious Prosecution and Unlawful Pretrial Detention
160. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully
herein.
161. In the manner described more fully above, Defendants, while acting as
investigators, individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with each other, accused
Plaintiff of criminal activity and exerted influence to initiate, continue, and
perpetuate judicial proceedings against Plaintiff without any probable cause for
doing so and in spite of the fact that they knew Plaintiff was innocent.
162. In doing so, Defendants caused Plaintiff to be unreasonably seized
without probable cause and deprived of his liberty, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights
secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
163. The false judicial proceedings against Plaintiff were instituted and
continued maliciously, resulting in injury.
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 26 of 33 PageID #:26
27
164. Defendants deprived Plaintiff of fair state criminal proceedings,
including the chance to defend himself during those proceedings, resulting in a
deprivation of liberty.
165. In addition, Defendants subjected Plaintiff to arbitrary governmental
action that shocks the conscience in that Plaintiff was deliberately and intentionally
framed for a crime of which he was totally innocent, through Defendants’
fabrication and suppression of evidence.
166. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable
and was undertaken intentionally, with reckless and deliberate indifference to the
rights of others, and in total disregard of the truth and of Plaintiff’s clear innocence.
167. The Defendants’ actions were taken under color of law and within the
scope of their employment.
168. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff
suffered loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, emotional
pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and damages as set
forth above.
169. Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count was undertaken
pursuant to the policies, practices, and customs of Defendant City of Chicago, and
by Defendants who were final policymakers for Defendant City of Chicago, in the
manner described more fully above.
Count III: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Failure to Intervene
170. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully
herein.
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 27 of 33 PageID #:27
28
171. In the manner described more fully above, during the constitutional
violations described herein, Defendants stood by without intervening to prevent the
violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, even though they had the opportunity to
do so.
172. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable
and was undertaken intentionally, with reckless and deliberate indifference to the
rights of others, and in total disregard of the truth and of Plaintiff’s innocence.
173. The Defendants’ actions were taken under color of law and within the
scope of their employment.
174. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff
suffered loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, emotional
pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and damages as set
forth above.
175. Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count was undertaken
pursuant to the policies, practices, and customs of Defendant City of Chicago and by
Defendants who were final policymakers for Defendant City of Chicago, in the
manner described more fully above.
Count IV: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Conspiracy to Deprive Constitutional Rights
176. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully
herein.
177. Prior to Plaintiff’s conviction, all of the Defendant Officers, acting in
concert with other co-conspirators, known and unknown, reached an agreement
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 28 of 33 PageID #:28
29
among themselves to frame Plaintiff for a crime he did not commit and thereby to
deprive him of his constitutional rights, all as described above.
178. In so doing, these co-conspirators conspired to accomplish an unlawful
purpose by an unlawful means. In addition, these co-conspirators agreed among
themselves to protect one another from liability by depriving Plaintiff of his rights.
179. In furtherance of their conspiracy, each of these co-conspirators
committed overt acts and were otherwise willful participants in joint activity.
180. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable
and was undertaken intentionally with reckless and deliberate indifference to the
rights of others and in total disregard of the truth and of Plaintiff’s innocence.
181. The Defendants’ actions were taken under color of law and within the
scope of their employment.
182. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff
suffered loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, emotional
pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and damages as set
forth above.
183. Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count was undertaken
pursuant to the policies, practices, and customs of Defendant City of Chicago and by
Defendants who were final policymakers for Defendant City of Chicago, in the
manner described more fully above.
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 29 of 33 PageID #:29
30
Count V: Illinois Law – Malicious Prosecution
184. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully
herein.
185. In the manner described more fully above, Defendants accused
Plaintiff of criminal activity and exerted influence to initiate, continue and
perpetuate judicial proceedings against Plaintiff without any probable cause for
doing so.
186. In so doing, these Defendants caused Plaintiff to be subjected
improperly to judicial proceedings for which there was no probable cause. These
judicial proceedings were instituted and continued maliciously, resulting in injury.
187. The Defendants’ actions were taken under color of law and within the
scope of their employment.
188. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff
suffered loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical
and emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and
damages as set forth above.
Count VI: Illinois Law – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
189. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully
herein.
190. The actions, omissions, and conduct of Defendant Officers, as set forth
above, were extreme and outrageous. These actions were rooted in an abuse of
power and authority and were undertaken with the intent to cause, or were in
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 30 of 33 PageID #:30
31
reckless disregard of the probability that their conduct would cause, severe
emotional distress to Plaintiff, as is more fully alleged above.
191. The Defendants’ actions were taken under color of law and within the
scope of their employment.
192. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff
suffered loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical
and emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and
damages as set forth above.
Count VII: Illinois Law – Civil Conspiracy
193. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully
herein.
194. As described more fully in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants,
acting in concert with other co-conspirators, known and unknown, reached an
agreement among themselves to frame Plaintiff for a crime he did not commit and
conspired by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose by an unlawful
means. In addition, these co-conspirators agreed among themselves to protect one
another from liability for depriving Plaintiff of his rights.
195. In furtherance of their conspiracy, each of these co-conspirators
committed overt acts and were otherwise willful participants in joint activity.
196. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable
and was undertaken intentionally, with reckless and deliberate indifference to the
rights of others and in total disregard of the truth and of Plaintiff’s innocence.
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 31 of 33 PageID #:31
32
197. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff
suffered loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, emotional
pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and damages as set
forth above.
Count VIII: Illinois Law – Respondeat Superior
198. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully
herein.
199. While committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs,
Defendant Officers were employees, members, and agents of the City of Chicago,
acting at all relevant times within the scope of their employment.
200. Defendant City of Chicago is liable as principal for all torts committed
by their agents.
Count IX: Illinois Law – Indemnification
201. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully
herein.
202. Illinois law provides that public entities are directed to pay any tort
judgment for compensatory damages for which employees are liable within the
scope of their employment.
203. Defendant Officers were employees, members, and agents of the City of
Chicago, acting at all relevant times within the scope of their employment in
committing the misconduct described herein.
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 32 of 33 PageID #:32
33
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Anthony McDaniels, respectfully request that this
Court enter a judgment in his favor and against the City of Chicago, former Police
Sergeant Ronald Watts, former Chicago Police Officer Kallatt Mohammed, Officer
Douglas Nichols, Jr., Manuel Leano, Elsworth Smith, Brian Bolton, Lamonica
Lewis, Edgar Carolos, Gabriella Shemash, John Griffin, Phillip J. Cline, Karen
Rowan, Debra Kirby, and other as-yet-unidentified officers of the Chicago Police
Department, awarding compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs against
each Defendant, punitive damages against each of the individual Defendants, and
any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, Anthony McDaniels, hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Scott Rauscher One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys
Jon Loevy Arthur Loevy Scott Rauscher Theresa Kleinhaus Joshua Tepfer Sean Starr Loevy & Loevy 311 North Aberdeen Street Third Floor Chicago, Illinois 60607 Phone: (312) 243-5900
Case: 1:18-cv-05126 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/27/18 Page 33 of 33 PageID #:33